Eruvin 11a — the Talmud in English

It is necessary for us

the reverse—

what [is the law]?

That is:

a. If he made a form of an entranceway for a mavoy at a height of more than twenty cubits, placing the upper reed above the two reeds on either side. ['

For it may be said that a form of an entranceway also requires some recognition, just as a side-post requires some recognition, even according to the one who says that a side-post is [effective] because of a partition. Hesed le-Avraham, second section, section 40].

b. If he made an amaltara for the entrance of a mavoy that is wider than ten cubits,

does it help or not?

And we resolve it:

Come and hear, for it was taught

explicitly:

A mavoy that is higher than twenty cubits—

he must reduce [its height].

And if it has a form of an entranceway, he need not reduce [it].

And we resolve one [of the questions] from it!

But it is still necessary for us [to ask]:

an amaltara in its width

of the mavoy—

what [is the law]?

Come and hear:

from this

which was taught: A mavoy that is higher than twenty cubits—

he must reduce [its height].

And one that is wider than ten—

he must reduce [its width].

And if it has a form of an entranceway—

he need not reduce [it].

And if it has an amaltara—

he need not reduce [it].

Is it not so, that what it said, “And if it has an amaltara, he need not reduce [it],” also applies

to the

latter clause,

which teaches in it, “A mavoy that is wider than ten, he must reduce [it],” and concerning this it says that if it has an amaltara, he need not reduce [it]?

And we reject [this]:

No,

the permission of an amaltara does not apply to the latter clause, to say that by means of an amaltara there is no need to reduce [the width].

Rather,

it applies only to the first clause,

which teaches in it: “A mavoy that is higher than twenty cubits—he must reduce [its height]”!

And now the Gemara returns to the matter that we learned in the Mishna: if it has a form of an entranceway, even though it is wider than ten [cubits], he need not reduce [it]!

And we say:

He was teaching it to him

[he was reciting it]

Rav Yehuda to Hiyya bar Rav,

our Mishna,

before Rav,

in the wording of our Mishna: “A mavoy that is wider than ten and has a form of an entranceway”—

he need not reduce [it]!

He said to him

Rav said to Rav Yehuda: This is not the wording of the Mishna.

Rather,

teach it

[thus shall you teach the Mishna, my son Hiyya]:

he must reduce [it]

and make the mavoy a width of up to ten cubits, because a form of an entranceway is effective only for an entrance that has up to ten cubits.

Rav Yosef said: From the words of our master

—Rav—who holds that a form of an entranceway is not effective when it is more than ten [cubits],

we learn:

A courtyard whose majority—

of each wall of its four walls—is made

of entrances and windows,

which is not permitted for carrying, since the breached area is greater than the standing area,

is not rendered permitted

even

by a form of an entranceway

that he makes for its entrances and windows, even if they are less than ten cubits! [See illustration 1]

For just as a form of an entranceway is not effective to make a breach in a mavoy of more than ten [cubits] into an “entrance,” so too a form of an entranceway is not effective for a breach greater than the standing area, even with entrances smaller than ten [cubits]!

And we explain it:

What is the reason

that the law of a form of an entranceway in a breach of a mavoy should be compared to a form of an entranceway regarding a breach greater than the standing area?

Since

an entrance of a mavoy that is

more than ten [cubits] prohibits in a mavoy

and in a courtyard.

And

likewise

a breach greater than the standing area prohibits in a courtyard.

Therefore, we have to learn by analogy:

Just as more than ten [cubits], which prohibits in a mavoy, is not rendered permitted—

according to Rav—

by a form of an entranceway,

so too a breach greater than the standing area, which prohibits in a courtyard, is not rendered permitted by a form of an entranceway! [

And we learn from this binyan av only concerning a breach greater than the standing area in four partitions.

For one partition breached by more than ten cubits is like a breach greater than the standing area in four partitions with breaches of less than ten cubits.

Since the reason that what is more than ten [cubits] prohibits is that it is not called an “entrance,” and only for that reason is a form of an entranceway not effective for it.

Therefore, it follows from here that likewise, for a breach greater than the standing area on four sides, a form of an entranceway will not be effective there, since people do not make an entranceway on four sides [when every entrance is greater than the standing area [Sefat Emet], Tosafot]].

And we challenge [this], that one cannot learn by analogy:

For

what is there concerning more than ten, which prohibits in a mavoy,

that it is fitting not to permit it by a form of an entranceway,

since

more than ten [cubits] is stringent, for

you did not permit it

even

with the side-posts of wells

[explained above, page 10a]

according to

the view of

Rabbi Meir

[who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda, below in Mishna 17b]. [See illustration 2]

Can you say the same concerning a breach greater than the standing area, which prohibits in a courtyard, since

it is lenient, for

you permitted it with the side-posts of wells,

where the breached area is greater than the standing area [for the standing area is only one cubit here and one cubit there, while the breach is ten cubits], and nevertheless it is permitted to carry there

according to everyone.

And we examine it:

Let us say that this supports

the one who says that a form of an entranceway is not effective when the breached area is greater than the standing area:

From this

which was taught: These partitions, whose majority are entrances

[see illustrations 1 and 2] and windows—

it is permitted

to carry within the area that they surround,

provided that there is

in the partitions

more standing area than breached area!

And at first we explain the beraita, and we are astonished concerning it:

But “these partitions

whose majority

are entrances and windows”—

could it enter your mind!?

Could it enter your mind that the tannay was indeed dealing with them!?

This is impossible.

For immediately afterward it teaches: “provided that the standing area is greater than the breached area,” and not that their majority should be entrances and windows?!

Rather,

necessarily,

say:

these partitions

in which he increased the entrances and windows,

it is permitted to carry there,

provided that the standing area is greater than the breached area.

And now it is proven that a form of an entranceway is not effective when the breach in each wall is greater than the standing area. For entrances and windows have a form of an entranceway, and nevertheless we require that the standing area be greater than the breached area!

Said

—he rejected

Rav Kahana

the proof:

When that was taught—

with defective entrances

[blind entrances. And some explain: damaged and incomplete entrances, like an old man who is an “ashmai,” one lacking Torah], which do not have a complete form of an entranceway.

And as he explains:

What are defective entrances?

Rav Rahumi and Rav Yosef disagree about it: One said: They do not have doorposts

[uprights], for the doorposts at the sides of the entrance are not straight; rather, one stone projects inward and one stone projects outward, and this is not a form of an entranceway.

And one said: They do not have a ceiling,

for the entrance is open through the entire height of the wall, and there is no ceiling over the entrance, and there is no form of an entranceway here, which is: one reed here and one reed here [doorposts] and a reed above them [lintel]].

And Rabbi Yohanan also holds this view of Rav,

above, who said: A form of an entranceway is not effective to render something an “entrance” when it is wider than ten [cubits]!

For Ravin bar Rav Adda said in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak: There was an incident involving a certain man from the valley of Beit Hורתן

[a place name],

who planted four stakes at the four corners of a field and stretched a vine-branch over them

from stake to stake, resembling a form of an entranceway. [See illustration 3]

And the incident came before the Sages, and they permitted him concerning diverse kinds,

so that he could sow adjacent to the form of an entranceway, even though there were vines within the area surrounded by the stakes. [

Since with regard to avoiding the prohibition of diverse kinds, every partition is effective, even a partition that does not actually separate between the seeds, like the partition of a vineyard. And as we learned concerning diverse kinds: If there was a fence in between, this one—the owner of the vines—may bring his vines close to the fence on this side, and that one—the owner of the seeds—may bring his seeds close to the fence on that side, even though in the ground they are not separated and draw nourishment together. Therefore, a “form of an entranceway” also suffices].

And Reish Lakish said: In the same manner that they permitted him

to regard the form of an entranceway as a partition

concerning diverse kinds, so they permitted him

also

concerning Shabbat

to regard it as a partition and to carry within the stakes. [Explained according to the interpretation of Rabbi Yitzhak in Tosafot].

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Only

concerning diverse kinds did they permit him,

but

concerning Shabbat they did not permit him.

And we explain it:

With what are we dealing

in this incident?

If you say

that it is dealing with a case in which he did not stretch the vine-branch over the “heads” of the stakes, but

from the side

[on their faces] he attached the vine-branch [either in their middle or close to their tops, Ritva], and that is why Rabbi Yohanan prohibited it? [See illustration 1]

But Rav Hisda said: A form of an entranceway that he made from the side is entirely ineffective

concerning Shabbat, since it does not resemble an entrance, for the lintel is placed upon the two doorposts [Rosh]; and how did Reish Lakish say that it is effective even concerning Shabbat?! [See illustration 2]

Rather,

certainly it is dealing with a case in which he placed the vine-branch

upon their tops

of the stakes themselves! [See illustration 3]

And with what

are we dealing?

If you say

that there was

ten

cubits or less between one stake and the other,

would

Rabbi Yohanan say in this case

that

concerning Shabbat they did not permit him?! But with ten cubits, everyone agrees that it is an entranceway?!

Rather, is it not so that it is

dealing with a case where there

is

a

more than ten

cubits between one stake and the other, and that is why Rabbi Yohanan said that it is not effective concerning Shabbat, for he holds that a form of an entranceway is not effective for an entrance wider than ten [cubits]!

We see, then, that Rabbi Yohanan holds like Rav.

And we reject [this]:

No,

Rabbi Yohanan is not dealing here with an entrance wider than ten [cubits]. And Rabbi Yohanan did not prohibit it for this reason.

Rather,

actually,

only

with ten

[cubits, and not more] is it dealing here.

And,

as we initially wished to say, it is dealing with a case in which he made the form of an entranceway

from the side. And that is why Rabbi Yohanan prohibited it. [See illustration 4]

And if you raise a difficulty from Rav Hisda, who prohibited [a form of an entranceway made] from the side, and it is difficult for Reish Lakish, who permits it, it is not difficult:

And if you ask from Rav Hisda, who prohibited [a form of an entranceway made] from the side, and it is difficult for Reish Lakish, who permitted it, it is not difficult:

And concerning Rav Hisda

himself

they disagree,

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish!

For Reish Lakish, who holds that they permitted him [to make it] from the side even concerning Shabbat, disagrees with Rav Hisda.

And Rabbi Yohanan holds like Rav Hisda.

For Rav Hisda also said that [a form of an entranceway made] from the side is not effective only concerning Shabbat, but not concerning diverse kinds, since Shabbat is more stringent than diverse kinds!

And we raise a difficulty, in order to uphold what we said, that Rabbi Yohanan holds like Rav:

And Rabbi Yohanan contradicts Rabbi Yohanan.

And Reish Lakish contradicts Reish Lakish.